can get the 135L & the 85mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.4 for the price of the 85L.

I was actually gonna suggest this (135L and 85mm f/1.8 combo) for two reasons. The first is that the 85mm f/1.8 is still a sharp lens with nice bokeh, as long as you avoid really high contrast backgrounds (fringing). And with a full-frame camera, it's got plenty shallow DOF.

That said, it depends on which is more important. If you need it for your business, then the 85L is the way to go, because the difference between the 135L and your 70-200 isn't that big. An 85L will give you something you simply can't accomplish now, and could help set you apart. If you're motivated by just wanting to try something new, then the 135L and 85mm f/1.8 both have fast AF for your daughters, and will give you a chance to see which focal length you prefer. You may find you love 85mm and want the L, and the f/1.8 version holds its value well

In my tastes, If you shoot women alot, the 85L looks softer. The bokeh is almost too feminine for men IMO.

If you shoot men alot, the 135L make them look more masculine. Compression at waist up makes them look stronger and more built. The blur is smooth but not fluffy soft.

I prefer the 135L. You can get the 135L & the 85mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.4 for the price of the 85L.

I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it? That seems to be the general consensus from what I've read. Same with the 85mm 1.8... Still, the price/weight factors are a solid argument against the 85

I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it? That seems to be the general consensus from what I've read. Same with the 85mm 1.8... Still, the price/weight factors are a solid argument against the 85

The improvement with the 135L over the 70-200 II is certainly noticeable in terms of the thinner DoF, but especially the bokeh (which is a minor weakness of the 70-200 II). Whether that difference is enough to justify owning both is a personaly decision.

The 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of IQ per $/£/€/¥, but you'd better not have any specular highlights in your frame unless purple is your favorite color and green is your second favorite.

I have 5dmkIII, 24-70 L, 70-200 II and recently I got 85 1.2....and I highly recommend it. With 70-200 I don't think that you will need 135.Autofocus is bit slow but it is accurate..and for dof at f1.2 you will need accuracy. If you need speedy autofocus just use 70-200.So my vote goes to 85

In my tastes, If you shoot women alot, the 85L looks softer. The bokeh is almost too feminine for men IMO.

If you shoot men alot, the 135L make them look more masculine. Compression at waist up makes them look stronger and more built. The blur is smooth but not fluffy soft.

I prefer the 135L. You can get the 135L & the 85mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.4 for the price of the 85L.

I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it? That seems to be the general consensus from what I've read. Same with the 85mm 1.8... Still, the price/weight factors are a solid argument against the 85

The 135L has better bokeh than the 70-200II and It shows of you have big highlights in the BG. It's so good I haven't had a need for a 85mm and my 50L provides me the atmosphere If I want it. My only gripe is that sony has a F/1.8 version and IS... (Anytime now canon for a version II)

Its all personal preference, but I find the 85mm focal length doesn't fit well into my system of primes.

For what it´s worth, I use the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, combined with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and the 85 f1.2L II for weddings and most other events. I occasionally use other lenses for church or fixed distant shooting, but 95-99% is shot with these four lenses. The primes I normally shoot wide open.

The 85 is probably the most challenging lens to use. No other lens produces the same 3D pop effect, with buttery bokeh. But no other lens can be as frustrating for its very shallow DOF. So if you go for that, it requires practice and more practice. But no other lens will be as rewarding when you learn how to use it. It is a slow focuser at close range, but from 3-4 meter (9-12 feet) I don´t find AF speed to be an issue. The challenge is to make sure you focus on the right thing.

The 135 f2 may have some qualities beyond what you get with the 70-200, but I have never felt that need. I have never used that lens myself, so it may be that I have missed something here.

I have both and they're both crazy awesome. Based on the lenses that you currently own, I'd go for the 85L first, then pick up the 135L. The 85 is great for low light shooting and has a better working distance for torso shots. Just be aware that the autofocus is twice as slow as you've heard. The 135L is sharp and quick to focus, but f2 without IS is tough to shoot with in low light. You'll have to crank up your ISO to get a fast enough shutter to avoid blurry shots during receptions.